Bicycler wrote:I think you are right that they are generally private access rather than public highways. Even if they were I don't think an access path to a bus station would be a footpath ("footway") in the sense covered by the Highways Act 1835. They are paths designed to allow pedestrians to access a building not to aid pedestrian passage along a highway.

Yeah, but what about the bus "road" entrances where a non-standard "no cycling" sign is often found? There's one of those at https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.75375 ... e0!6m1!1e1 near http://osm.org/go/0EUglYuys--?layers=C&m= which would seriously obstruct access to three cycle parks and a through cycle route if it were valid. (Actually, I wonder if it's changed since I last paid it any attention because that says only "BUSES ONLY" and "NO CARS" - doesn't mention cycling at all.)

Streetview is May 2009 so maybe the silly cycling signs are more recent?

My understanding is that if the road is a highway and there is a TRO which specifies signs (presumably the correct ones) then the provision cannot be enforced if the requisite signs are not in place. If the area of the bus station is covered by a byelaw like my bus station and parks examples above then these don't require road signs. In these cases unofficial signs have no legal effect but they do warn users of a prohibition. As that would be over and above the legal requirement then they could be viewed as a courtesy ie. better than nothing. I'd like to know just how frequently such byelaws are ever enforced.

It is conceivable with the way things are that the powers that be expect cyclists to walk their bicycles into cycle parks If the signs would prohibit use of a through cycle route then maybe the signs have been put in the wrong place. The other option that springs to mind is an old prohibition that no-one has bothered to repeal when building cycle parks and a through cycle route.

Bicycler wrote:Streetview is May 2009 so maybe the silly cycling signs are more recent?

My understanding is that if the road is a highway and there is a TRO which specifies signs (presumably the correct ones) then the provision cannot be enforced if the requisite signs are not in place. If the area of the bus station is covered by a byelaw like my bus station and parks examples above then these don't require road signs. In these cases unofficial signs have no legal effect but they do warn users of a prohibition. As that would be over and above the legal requirement then they could be viewed as a courtesy ie. better than nothing. I'd like to know just how frequently such byelaws are ever enforced.

It is conceivable with the way things are that the powers that be expect cyclists to walk their bicycles into cycle parks :roll: If the signs would prohibit use of a through cycle route then maybe the signs have been put in the wrong place. The other option that springs to mind is an old prohibition that no-one has bothered to repeal when building cycle parks and a through cycle route.

But, if signs used are in the same style as those used on highways would it not be reasonable to expect people to interpret them in the same manner as the conventions used just a few feet away on the highway ? So, using those conventions the sign could reasonably be interpreted as "No No cycling". So a sign put in place by the controlling authority (e.g. the bus station owner/operator) warning users of a byelaw except actually giving the impression of the opposite of the byelaw could be argued to be "deliberately misleading" and actually being worse than nothing.

No I don't think I believe that anybody really interprets a cycle in a red circle sign with a strike through as meaning "you must ride a bike through here". I see your argument in theory, but in this case the actual chance of somebody being misled into thinking that they were obliged to cycle is nil. We have survived the widespread placement of strike through no smoking signs in all kinds of places without people thinking it denotes an obligatory smoking area

There's nothing that might not be argued at court, but that doesn't mean it's likely to make much headway.

The reason that proper traffic signs have to comply is that part of the "failing to conform to a traffic sign" charge includes the "lawfully erected" rtequirement so, if it can be shown that the sign doesn't comply, then the charge will probably fail, always depending on whether a court thinks it's a significant deviation. It is assumed that traffic signs are lawfully erected, so if the defence doesn't raise the issue, it's unlikely that anybody else will.

Ayesha wrote:Not dismounting when there is a blue rectangular ‘Cyclists dismount’ sign AND there is a pedestrian, it can be construed as ‘riding in an inconsiderate manner’ contrary to Rule 68 in the Highway Code.

The pedestrian could complain. If the pedestrian is a policeman, you in for it.

The HC is a summary. The actual law regarding inconsiderate cycling says:

If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.

To me that requires more than just ignoring a sign. It means needlessly inconveniencing another road user or riding in a manner which intimidates someone or forces them to take avoiding action. A considerate cyclist could ignore the sign and not be breaking the law. Likewise, an inconsiderate cyclist could ride down a road or cycle path and break the law. As I said upthread, it might be mentioned in evidence that the cyclist had ignored signs advising that he dismount but that itself wouldn't be the act of inconsiderate cycling.

I did say "AND there is a pedestrian".Also"The pedestrian could complain."

When the pedestrian marches into the local police station and states a bloke in red on a blue bicycle made them feel 'intimidated' by riding when a blue rectangular sign said 'Cyclists dismount', is that an offence commited by the cyclist?

Bicycler wrote:My understanding is that if the road is a highway and there is a TRO which specifies signs (presumably the correct ones) then the provision cannot be enforced if the requisite signs are not in place. If the area of the bus station is covered by a byelaw like my bus station and parks examples above then these don't require road signs.

I think the road is a highway (the former Cattle Market square) but it is not listed on the TRO which describes all the town centre prohibitions and no byelaws are listed by the council.

Bicycler wrote:The HC is a summary. The actual law regarding inconsiderate cycling says:

If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.

To me that requires more than just ignoring a sign. It means needlessly inconveniencing another road user or riding in a manner which intimidates someone or forces them to take avoiding action. A considerate cyclist could ignore the sign and not be breaking the law. Likewise, an inconsiderate cyclist could ride down a road or cycle path and break the law. As I said upthread, it might be mentioned in evidence that the cyclist had ignored signs advising that he dismount but that itself wouldn't be the act of inconsiderate cycling.

I did say "AND there is a pedestrian".Also"The pedestrian could complain."

When the pedestrian marches into the local police station and states a bloke in red on a blue bicycle made them feel 'intimidated' by riding when a blue rectangular sign said 'Cyclists dismount', is that an offence commited by the cyclist?

In your example is the hypothetical pedestrian intimidated by the cyclist's ignoring of the sign or his unsafe riding? The important word in the law is "reasonable". It is not reasonable to assume that other road users will be adversely affected solely by you ignoring an advisory traffic sign despite your actions being considerate and safe. Read that way, ignoring any traffic sign or any piece of Highway Code advice would become a criminal matter the moment somebody chose to take offence to it. We'd be inconsiderate cyclists every time we rode on the roads rather than cycle paths or didn't wear helmets. There are undoubtedly many times on shared paths where it would be correct to dismount and, yes, the presence of other road users would be an important consideration but merely passing the sign is not inconsiderate just because other people may not approve.

Bicycler wrote:My understanding is that if the road is a highway and there is a TRO which specifies signs (presumably the correct ones) then the provision cannot be enforced if the requisite signs are not in place. If the area of the bus station is covered by a byelaw like my bus station and parks examples above then these don't require road signs.

I think the road is a highway (the former Cattle Market square) but it is not listed on the TRO which describes all the town centre prohibitions and no byelaws are listed by the council.

If it is a vehicular highway and the right to cycle has not been removed by any legal mechanism then the public still has a right to cycle down it. Any unofficial signs would not affect that right at all.

I would not necessarily assume that the bus station road is a public highway because one existed there before the bus station was built. It is not uncommon for old roads to be legally stopped up when new development takes place

You'll have to forgive me because I'm not local. From your maps it looks like the signs apply to the road through the bus station but the cycle route goes along Market Street which appears to be unquestionably a public road. How does the inability to cycle round the bus station affect the use of the cycle route?

Bicycler wrote:I would not necessarily assume that the bus station road is a public highway because one existed there before the bus station was built. It is not uncommon for old roads to be legally stopped up when new development takes place

You'll have to forgive me because I'm not local. From your maps it looks like the signs apply to the road through the bus station but the cycle route goes along Market Street which appears to be unquestionably a public road. How does the inability to cycle round the bus station affect the use of the cycle route?

Sorry, there's a bit of confusion there: it's a cycle route, not the cycle route. The blocked route would be Paradise Lane northbound, which is currently accessed by deviating along Market Street eastbound, crossing to the north-east corner of the bus station, where a dropped kerb near the taxi rank allows access into the car park (and to an unpopular small cycle park too) and then riding north and west to where Paradise Lane exits the car park through a gap in the wall, crosses Oldsunway and meets Norfolk Street. The alternative route would be using the 3-lane Railway Road gyratory between Old Market Street and Norfolk Street, which is no fun whatsoever, as it's either a fume-filled traffic jam or a 30mph drag race between traffic lights, depending on time of day.

I've found no evidence that the highway was stopped up, but I realise absence of proof isn't proof of absence. We have a chance to sort this out: this area is all up for redevelopment again and local Cyclenation and CTC campaigners have been invited to a meeting on 2nd September, but the bus operators far outnumber us.

(6)The council of every county [F7, metropolitan district] and London borough and the Common Council shall cause to be made, and shall keep corrected up to date, a list of the streets within their area which are highways maintainable at the public expense.

(7)Every list made under subsection (6) above shall be kept deposited at the offices of the council by whom it was made and may be inspected by any person free of charge at all reasonable hours and in the case of a list made by the council of a county, the county council shall supply to the council of each district in the county an up to date list of the streets within the area of the district that are highways maintainable at the public expense, and the list so supplied shall be kept deposited at the office of the district council and may be inspected by any person free of charge at all reasonable hours.

Whilst there is always the possibility of omission from such a list and rare cases of public highways which are not publically maintainable, it might be worth a look at that list. Obviously you have a stronger bargaining position regarding the redevelopment if you have a proven existing right of way.

On the subject of the use of NO CYCLING signs at places like bus stations:-

I wonder if there are any Health and Safety people on here. I'd be interested to know if there is some sort of list of standard / approved health and safety signs. There are images of all sorts of prohibition signs on the internet, many of which have a red diagonal in addition to a red circle. Many of these seen to be the whim of the vendor but some look official. The HSE publishes a book for construction site safety PROTECTING THE PUBLIC: Your next move whose cover includes the representation of a NO PEDESTRIANS sign with the additional red diagonal.

The Regs “apply to all premises and activities where workers are employed, but exclude signs used for the regulation of road, rail, inland waterway, sea or air traffic and those used in the marketing of dangerous substances, products and equipment. However, the Regulations require the use of road traffic signs, as prescribed in the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984”,